United States v. Mario Burton

Case: 15-31063 Document: 00513697365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-31063 FILED
Summary Calendar September 29, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARIO BURTON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:10-CR-222-12
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Mario Burton, federal prisoner # 29633-034, appeals the denial of his 18
U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence for conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride. He argues that
the district court gave undue weight to his being on supervised release at the
time he committed the instant offense and made an erroneous assessment of
his prison disciplinary record in choosing to deny him relief.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 15-31063 Document: 00513697365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2016
No. 15-31063
The district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, while the court’s
interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo and its
findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th
Cir. 2009). The parties do not dispute that Burton is eligible for a reduction
pursuant to Amendment 782. When determining whether the specific facts of
an eligible prisoner’s case warrant a reduction, the district court considers the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the public safety consequences of an
earlier release, and the prisoner’s post-sentencing conduct. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10
comment. n.1(B)(i)-(iii); see United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th
Cir. 2008). The specific facts and circumstances of Burton’s case, including his
prison disciplinary record, the violent nature of his conduct while incarcerated,
and his commission of the instant offense almost immediately after his release
to supervision on a prior drug conviction all support the district court’s
determination that a sentence reduction was unwarranted. Burton has made
no showing that the district court’s decision was based on a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence or on issues or factors not within its scope of
discretionary powers. See United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 339 (5th
Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
2